Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Nutanix failure domain documentation #8555

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

yannickstruyf3
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:
N/A
Description of changes:
Update Nutanix documentation to include failure domain example.
Testing (if applicable):
N/A
Documentation added/planned (if applicable):

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

@eks-distro-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @yannickstruyf3. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a aws member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

@eks-distro-bot eks-distro-bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jul 30, 2024
@d8660091
Copy link
Member

/lgtm
/approve

@eks-distro-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: d8660091

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Copy link
Member

@chrisnegus chrisnegus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just have one query that applies to several objects.

### failureDomains[0].cluster.type (required)
Type to identify the failure domain Prism Element cluster. (Permitted values: `name` or `uuid`)

### failureDomains[0].cluster.name (`name` or `UUID` required)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you mean: "failureDomains[0].cluster.name or failureDomains[0].cluster.uuid required"? Someone might think you mean this value could be set to name or UUID. It looks like this could only be set to name. Same question with other objects below that say: "(name or UUID required)". There are eight such objects here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the feedback @chrisnegus.
For the cluster object in a failure domain the name or the uuid are required. What would your guidance be to make this more clear? For example should we use the full path: "failureDomains[0].cluster.name or failureDomains[0].cluster.UUID required"?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, maybe. My first impression was that failureDomains[0].cluster.type could be set to a name or a UUID, which I don't believe is the case here. So being explicit might be good.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have updated the documentation to use the full paths of the spec attributes. Please take a look.

@sp1999
Copy link
Member

sp1999 commented Oct 14, 2024

/ok-to-test

@sp1999 sp1999 added this to the v0.21.0 milestone Oct 14, 2024
@sp1999
Copy link
Member

sp1999 commented Oct 16, 2024

Can you update the hash here with #imagename-imagename-or-imageuuid-required to pass the docs presubmit?

@yannickstruyf3
Copy link
Contributor Author

Corrected the link. Presubmit passed now.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.40%. Comparing base (f634117) to head (e0f01dd).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8555   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.40%   72.40%           
=======================================
  Files         578      578           
  Lines       45373    45373           
=======================================
  Hits        32853    32853           
  Misses      10790    10790           
  Partials     1730     1730           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@chrisnegus chrisnegus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

@eks-distro-bot eks-distro-bot merged commit 8413ac3 into aws:main Oct 29, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved area/docs Documentation documentation lgtm ok-to-test size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants